R.B. v. Downingtown Area Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 23 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-4035 |
| Citation | 509 F.Supp.3d 339 |
| Parties | R.B., et al., Plaintiffs, v. DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Nicole Reimann, Batchis Nestle Reimann LLC, Bala Cynwyd, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Karl A. Romberger, Jr., Sweet Stevens Katz & Williams LLP, New Britain, PA, for Defendant.
This case involves whether a Student receiving special education in the Downingtown Area School District was denied a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") in kindergarten and first grade. Following a due process hearing before a state Hearing Officer, the parents of Student ("Parents") filed suit in this Court, alleging a violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). The case proceeded with both parties filing motions for judgment on the administrative record. Parents challenged the Hearing Officer's denial of reimbursement for private school tuition/2018 Extended School Year ("ESY") services and independent educational evaluations. Parents also argue that the compensatory education award should have been larger. Defendant ("the District") argued that the Hearing Officer erred in ordering them to provide compensatory education to Parents.
The District's motion will be denied because the Hearing Officer did not clearly err in finding a denial of FAPE for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years. Parents’ motion will also be denied because they have not demonstrated that Student's Individualized Education Program ("IEP") was not implemented, that the May 2018 IEP constituted a denial of FAPE, or that the District's evaluations were flawed.
Student is a primary elementary school-aged student residing in the Downingtown Area School District ("District"). Student is eligible for special education pursuant to the IDEA on the bases of an Other Health Impairment (i.e., ADHD) and a Speech/Language Impairment.
Student began school in the District in kindergarten and also attended first grade there, but attended a private school at the Parents’ election for the 2018-19 school year and repeated first grade. The Parents’ decision was made following the District's proposed program for that school year. Parents filed a due process complaint against the District, asserting that it denied Student a FAPE under the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as well as the federal and state regulations implementing those statutes. Their claims related to the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years, as well as the program proposed for the summer of 2018 and the 2018-19 school year.
At the due process hearing, the Parents sought compensatory education, reimbursement for tuition and related expenses at the private school, and reimbursement for two private evaluations. The District maintained that its special education program, as offered and implemented, was appropriate for Student and that no remedy was due.
As relevant here, the Hearing Officer concluded that the 2016-17 IEP, developed when Student was 4.5 years old and entering kindergarten, was appropriate except that most of the goals did not have baselines, so progress on the goals was consequently "impossible to glean." Compl. Ex. 1, at 28, ECF No. 1-1. "As such, the progress monitoring reports and other available information did not adequately inform the Parents, or the Hearing Officer, on whether and how Student was achieving the individualized expectations on [the relevant] IEP goals." Id.
As to the following year (2017-18), during Student's first grade, the Hearing Officer concluded:
Student's impulsivity and lack of focus and attention was negatively impacting academic skills including reading to a marked extent, but the PBSP [Positive Behavior Support Plan] was not revised. Although academic interventions were implemented, a new FBA [Functional Behavior Assessment] in February 2018 did not result in any changes to the PBSP to any meaningful degree until the May 2018 [Revision IEP] that added interventions based on the FBA recommendations. Progress on many goals including those that did relate to behavior remained less than clear, and was important to understanding whether and how Student was or was not provided a FAPE in addressing behaviors appropriately during the 2017-18 school year.
The Hearing Officer awarded compensatory education for the FAPE denial in the amount of "(a) two hours per week for each school day that the District was in session for students" during the 2016-17 school year; and "(b) one hour per week for each school day that the District was in session for students over the 2017-18 school year." Id. at 34. The Hearing Officer denied Parents’ claim for reimbursement of private school tuition for 2018-19 and tuition for the 2018 Extended School Year (ESY) program Student attended. Id. Reimbursement for privately obtained evaluations was also denied. Id.
Parents filed a Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, challenging the Hearing Officer's conclusions in relation to the compensatory education award and the reimbursement for private school tuition, ESY tuition, and the evaluations. The District also filed a Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, challenging the Hearing Officer's conclusions in regard to the lack of baselines in the IEP goals and the District's behavioral programming. These motions are now before the Court.
In considering a challenge to a hearing officer's decision on an IDEA claim, district courts employ a "modified de novo" standard of review. S.H. v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark, 336 F.3d 260, 270 (3d Cir. 2003). District courts may reach different decisions than a hearing officer, but must accord the decision of the hearing officer "due weight." Carlisle Area Sch. Dist. v. Scott P. ex rel. Bess P., 62 F.3d 520, 524 (3d Cir. 1995). Under this standard, the hearing officer's factual findings "are to be considered prima facie correct." S.H., 336 F.3d at 270 (citing M.M. ex rel. D.M. v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523, 530–31 (4th Cir. 2002) ). "[I]f a reviewing court fails to adhere to them, it is obliged to explain why." Id. (alteration in original) (quoting M.M., 303 F.3d at 531 ). "The court is not, however, to substitute its own notions of sound educational policy for those of local school authorities." Id. (quoting M.M., 303 F.3d at 531 ). In other words, the Court is not to serve as the arbiter of sound educational policy.
Similarly, district courts must accept the hearing officer's credibility determinations "unless the non-testimonial, extrinsic evidence in the record would justify a contrary conclusion." Shore Reg'l High Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. P.S. ex rel. P.S., 381 F.3d 194, 199 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Scott P., 62 F.3d at 529 ). "In this context[,] the word ‘justify’ demands essentially the same standard of review given to a trial court's findings of fact by a federal appellate court." Id.
Importantly, "whether the District fulfilled its FAPE obligations" is "subject to clear error review as [a] question[ ] of fact." P.P. ex rel. Michael P. v. West Chester Area Sch. Dist., 585 F.3d 727, 735 (3d Cir. 2009). And, "claims for compensatory education and tuition reimbursement are subject to plenary review as conclusions of law." Id.
The District argues that "the hearing officer erred in two basic regards: (1) concluding the IEP goals did not contain baselines and so progress was ‘impossible to glean’ and ‘less than clear,’ and (2) concluding the school district did not respond properly to the February 2018 Functional Behavioral Assessment (‘FBA’)." Def.’s Mot. J. Administrative R. 1, ECF No. 16. These will be reviewed in turn for clear error.
The IDEA provides that an IEP must include "a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals." 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II). Such a statement is "designed to – (aa) meet the child's needs that result from the child's disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and (bb) meet each of the child's other educational needs that result from the child's disability." Id. The IDEA also requires that every IEP include "a statement of the child's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance." Id. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I).
In relation to the IEP goals determination, the District argues that the Hearing Officer erred because "[t]he law does not require ‘baselines,’ Lathrop R-II Sch. Dist. v. Gray, 611 F.3d 419, 425 (8th Cir. 2010), but goals that are measurable in context, Colonial Sch. Dist. v. G.K. ex rel. A.K., 763 F. App'x 192, 197 (3d Cir. 2019)." Def.’s Mot. J. Administrative R. 2-3, ECF No. 16.1 The term "baselines" is a bit ambiguous, since the case law separates the term into two separate categories: (1) historical baseline data, and (2) baseline data regarding the Student's present levels of educational performance (PLEP). Given that the current dispute appears to center around the lack of baselines related to PLEPs, see Compl. Ex. 1, at 5–9, ECF No. 1, the majority of the District's case law becomes inapposite, as the cases either deal with historical baseline data or situations in which PLEPs were present.2 The District's argument is therefore only partially true. While the law does not require historical baselines, it does require baselines relating to the "child's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance." See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I) ; Red Clay Consol. Sch. Dist. v. T.S., 893 F. Supp. 2d 643, 650-52 (D. Del. 2012). Consequently, the hearing officer's decision is not incorrect "[o]n this legal matter alone," as the District asserts. See Def.’s Mot. J. Administrative R. 18, ECF No. 16.
However, while a lack of...
To continue reading
Request your trial